My Ethical Code

Preface

I believe that the rightness or wrongness of an action or decision is based on the consequences it leads to. The consequences that matter are the changes in experience of sentient beings. I believe in taking an impartial or universal approach to ethics, meaning every human (including myself) receives equal moral consideration. I also believe many non-human animals and future beings deserve some significant moral consideration, although I will not attempt to perfectly quantify their relative weighting in this ethical code.

I indeed subscribe to a utilitarian view of ethics. I do not think acting in accordance with certain principles or virtues is valuable in and of itself, but only insofar as it leads to good outcomes. When possible, or when the stakes seem high enough, I should do my best to analyze the potential short and long-run outcomes of any action. However, when this is not feasible, relying on heuristics or rules of thumb will be the best option. The following ethical code attempts to outline many of these heuristics or “default” approaches for dealing with common ethical dilemmas. The default approaches essentially address where the burden of proof should lie. To go against the “default” requires compelling evidence and reason to believe that doing so will result in significantly better consequences in expectation compared to sticking with the default.

The utilitarian approach to ethical decision-making struggles to capture negative network effects. Here I am referring to the degradation of social norms like being honest and transparent with others in your community. One lie may not have a significant impact on the community norm of being truthful, but if everyone starts lying then there is clearly a major problem from the utilitarian perspective. This is why I choose to assume that things like lying, spilling secrets, breaking promises, and cheating are by default unethical. While I do not view these actions as bad in and of themselves, they do have negative effects on social norms that are key to a prosperous society.

Truth-Telling

Lying

It will be assumed that lying is not bad in and of itself, but that in general it leads to worse outcomes than telling the truth, therefore I will consider lying by default to be unethical. In other words, when in doubt, I will not lie. Some exceptions include:

• Lying to prevent a much worse outcome, such as death or great physical or emotional harm to myself or others.

• Lying during a game where being deceitful is an acceptable part of the game (i.e., Liar’s Dice). The decisions of others to bet based on my untruths will be their responsibility.

• Lying to children, assuming it has a clear benefit for their health or happiness and does not hinder their long-term psychology or trust in others

Lying by Omission

Under most circumstances, I do not think I have an ethical obligation to share what I believe to be true information. In other words, by default, the decision to not disclose information will be considered ethically permissible. Some key and broad exceptions are as follows:

• If I am directly asked for my knowledge, then the default will be to share what I believe to be true, and omitting key information will be considered unethical by default.

• If I have information that would clearly change someone’s decision making, then by default the ethical thing to do would be to share the information.

Self-Deception

Psychological research has suggested that humans have strong tendencies to deceive themselves, and I am no exception. I will strive to always seek the truth and act on it, not simply what I want the truth to be. Willful ignorance is an unacceptable approach to reasoning about the outcomes of a decision. Some strategies to avoid biased reasoning include:

• When considering an option that accords with my beliefs, ask “must I believe this?” Then try to develop strong arguments for why it could be wrong.

• When considering an option that contradicts my beliefs, ask “can I believe this?” Then try to develop strong arguments for why it could be right.

• Consider what piece(s) of information would be necessary to change my mind on a decision, then attain that information if it is accessible.

• Consider how I would act if an alternative to my belief were true.

If someone I know is obviously deceiving themselves, I will strive to tell them what I believe to be true, but ultimately, they will be responsible for the consequences of their self-deception.

Secrets

It will be assumed that keeping the confidentiality of those who share secrets with me is the best/most ethical option by default. In other words, when in doubt about the consequences of keeping versus spilling the secret to someone else, I will keep the secret. When asked questions about this secret information, I should strive to do what is in the best interests of all parties involved. It is generally better to remain ambiguous or state that I cannot divulge certain information than to lie to those asking. An example of a scenario where I would likely not keep a secret would be if someone told me they intended to commit suicide. Here it seems clear that preventing the suicide would be of much greater ethical importance than keeping the secret (and trust) of this other person.

Promises

It will be assumed that breaking a promise is not bad in and of itself, but that in general it leads to worse outcomes than keeping a promise, therefore I will consider breaking a promise by default to be unethical. In other words, when in doubt, I will not break a promise. In general, I will try my best to avoid making promises for things that may lead to ethical quandaries (or really just making promises in general). Since it is so easy and natural to put our own interests above others, I will strive to put great weight on the interests of others when considering the breaking of a promise. Ultimately, I will try to do what is in the best interests of everyone involved. In the event that relevant circumstances change, I will try to communicate with the other party and ideally update the promise. I think it is ethical to rescind a promise that I no longer feel I can keep, as long as this is communicated to the other party and it occurs before the promise has been broken through other actions. If a promise is broken, this should be communicated to the other party, and reasonable action should be taken to make amends. An example of when I think it would be ethical to break a promise would be if I promised to pick up a friend from the airport at a certain time, but on the way there is a car accident and I am the only one around to call 911 – then I would take the time to call 911 and help those involved, as this seems clearly more consequential than making my friend wait and breaking my promise.

Cheating

It will be assumed that cheating is not bad in and of itself, but that in most cases it leads to worse outcomes than not cheating, therefore I will consider cheating by default to be unethical. In other words, when in doubt, I will not cheat. With regard to cheating, it is especially important to put my own interests aside and evaluate the decision/action from an unbiased perspective. Because we naturally tend to overvalue our own interests, special effort should be made to consider the interests of those who may be affected by the cheating. The fact that most other people are cheating does not make cheating right. If the cheating does not cause any negative consequences to others, then it may be permissible only if there is a clear and significant benefit, as a habit of cheating is not something I wish to develop. I will actively try to prevent others from cheating when it results in negative consequences for others. If the cheating of others involves no negative consequences, then I do not believe I have an ethical obligation to intervene. I cannot think of a good example where cheating would be ethical, which indicates how rare this event should be.

Language

I will strive to use language that is honest and transparent when communicating with others. If others are deceived by my communication, then that should by default be considered a poor outcome and an unethical choice of words. If a miscommunication or false impression does occur, it will be my responsibility to clarify any confusions and make up whatever may have been lost due to this confusion. When the stakes are nonnegligible, such as negotiating work contract, I should confirm with my counterpart that we are on the same page. I do not have a great sense of how to regulate my use of euphemisms besides following the ideals listed above. I do not consider the use of euphemisms for the purpose of jokes/humor to be unethical.

Stealing

Stealing Physical Property/Money

It will be assumed that stealing the property of another individual or entity is not bad in and of itself, but that in almost all cases it leads to worse outcomes than not stealing, therefore I will consider stealing property by default to be unethical and something to be avoided. This applies to any property that the owner would consider theirs and has not been offered freely to me. When it is unclear if something is up for grabs (i.e., food left out), I should ask permission and only take the property if permission is granted. Property that is found, having been abandoned by the previous owner will be considered fair game. Property that is found, having been lost by the previous owner should be evaluated on a case-by-case basis, considering how difficult/likely it would be to return the lost property. When it is unknown whether the property was abandoned or lost, it should be assumed that it was lost. Special exceptions may be granted only when it is quite clear that not stealing some property would lead to much worse consequences (i.e., death/permanent disability) than the stealing the property would. It should be noted that if something has been stolen, for whatever reason, it should be returned to the owner as soon as possible and in good condition.

Stealing Intellectual Property

I should strive to act with humility in my life and work, and always give credit to those whose ideas I use. If someone’s intellectual property has been exposed to me unintentionally, I will not distribute those ideas unless given explicit permission.

Embezzlement

When granted funds or resources to be used for a project or activity, I will only use the funds in ways that would be fully approved of by the granters. When in doubt, permission should always be sought before making a final decision about allocating funds.

Borrowing

When borrowing property or resources from another person or entity, the borrowing should always be consensual. This applies to borrowing for my personal use or on behalf of someone else. Additionally, great effort should be made to return the property in acceptable condition and within an appropriate time frame, ideally as agreed upon beforehand. Borrowing without consent, while not bad in and of itself, should be assumed to lead to worse outcomes than not borrowing at all, therefore I will consider borrowing without consent to be unethical by default. Similar exceptions as in the case of stealing can be made for unique cases where the consequences of not borrowing would be much worse than borrowing without consent.

Harming

Harming by Acts of Commission

It will be assumed that causing physical or psychological harm are by definition bad and therefore by default considered unethical. By psychological harm, I am referring to any actions that do not involve direct or indirect physical contact, but nonetheless cause someone to suffer internally (this will most likely involve communication of some sort). In general, immense effort should be made to avoid causing harm to others, as this is of paramount importance in my ethics. Acts of commission that cause harm will be considered unethical unless the acts are made in self-defense, the defense of personal property, or the defense of others and their property. Here, I should aim to only cause the minimum amount of harm necessary to prevent an aggressor from causing further harm to myself or others. Causing permanent damage should be avoided if possible. In the future, I may utilize security monitoring systems for the purpose of self-defense, however, I do not intend to arm myself with any particular weapons. That being said, I do not think the use of weapons for self-defense is inherently unethical.

Harming by Acts of Omission

Acts of omission that cause harm will only be considered unethical if any of the following conditions hold: 1) I am among a small group of individuals who could possibly prevent the harm and preventing the harm does not require a sacrifice of great significance, 2) I created the conditions which will eventually lead to the harm and preventing the harm does not require a sacrifice of great significance, or 3) preventing the harm requires no significant sacrifice or effort. Here, a sacrifice of great significance would include any risk of death, permanent disability, or personal harm/loss greater than the harm that I would be trying to prevent. It is difficult to outline a protocol for responding to all types of situations, but in general, I should use my best judgement to determine how to reduce the net harm in a dire situation, and I should not allow my interests to unfairly outweigh the interests of others.

Abortion

I support women’s right to choose based on the evidence that suggests providing safe and legal access to abortions leads to much better outcomes for a society. With that said, I will never have to decide whether to get an abortion myself, nor do I intend to try to persuade any woman one way or the other, therefore my ethical code will not say anymore on this topic.

Euthanasia

I support a person’s right to request active or passive euthanasia voluntarily and consensually. If the person is unable to communicate their desires, then by default I will consider euthanizing them to be unethical, unless it is quite clear that the rest of their life will entail great suffering, in which case an exception may be made. Involuntary or nonconsensual euthanasia will be considered unethical, except for extreme circumstances (i.e. killing someone who intends to go kill others). I do not intend to euthanize anyone in my lifetime, but if the circumstances are dire enough, I may be compelled to do so.

Risk / Coercion

Imposing Risk on Others

Imposing risk of harm or loss of property on others will be considered by default unethical, unless the expected benefits of imposing the risk clearly outweigh the expected harms (probabilistically speaking). In other words, when in doubt, I will avoid imposing a risk. For example, I believe the benefits of being able to drive my car significantly outweigh the risks that I impose on others by driving. However, I would consider drunk driving to be unethical because the expected benefit does not outweigh the expected harms.

Imposing Risk on Myself

Since there are people who care about my wellbeing and would be harmed psychologically if any great physical harm were to occur to me, I will keep a lower risk tolerance than I would if I were purely self-interested. Fortunately, my risk tolerance is not very high as it is.

Coercion of Others

Coercing others to do things that they would not otherwise do will be considered unethical by default. By coercion I do not mean making verbal arguments or pointing out information or reasons supporting a particular position. I am referring to the use of a threat or a bribe to influence one’s behavior. Coercion may be permissible only if the consequences of not changing another person’s behavior is significantly greater in expectation than the consequences of coercing them. The burden of proof for ethically justifying a threat will generally be higher than that of a bribe because the former involves imposing risk on another person. For example, I would consider it ethical to bribe someone with a free beer to get them to not start a fight with another person at the bar, but I would not consider it ethical to threaten them with violence.

Resisting Coercion

Accepting a bribe will be considered unethical by default, especially if it creates an incentive to treat others (non-bribers) unfairly. There may be exceptions where accepting a bribe clearly leads to better net outcomes than not accepting the bribe, but I should strive to ensure I am considering the interests of everyone involved fairly and not overweighing my own interests. If I am threatened into doing something, then by default it will be assumed to be ethical to act in a way that avoids what harm is being threatened. This may also be subject to exceptions where the consequences implied by the threat are of significantly less ethical importance compared to the consequences of acting as though I were not threatened.